Seismic behavior of buried pipelines constructed by design criteria

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2271–2278, 2013www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2271/2013/doi:10.5194/nhess-13-2271-2013© Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

EGU Journal Logos (RGB)

Advances in Geosciences

Open A

ccess

Natural Hazards and Earth System

SciencesO

pen Access

Annales Geophysicae

Open A

ccess

Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics

Open A

ccess

Atmospheric Chemistry

and Physics

Open A

ccess

Atmospheric Chemistry

and Physics

Open A

ccess

Discussions

Atmospheric Measurement

Techniques

Open A

ccess

Atmospheric Measurement

Techniques

Open A

ccess

Discussions

Biogeosciences

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

BiogeosciencesDiscussions

Climate of the Past

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

Climate of the Past

Discussions

Earth System Dynamics

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

Earth System Dynamics

Discussions

GeoscientificInstrumentation

Methods andData Systems

Open A

ccess

GeoscientificInstrumentation

Methods andData Systems

Open A

ccess

Discussions

GeoscientificModel Development

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

GeoscientificModel Development

Discussions

Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences

Open A

ccess

Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences

Open A

ccess

Discussions

Ocean Science

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

Ocean ScienceDiscussions

Solid Earth

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

Solid EarthDiscussions

The Cryosphere

Open A

ccess

Open A

ccess

The CryosphereDiscussions

Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences

Open A

ccess

Discussions

Seismic behavior of buried pipelines constructed by design criteriaand construction specifications of both Korea and the US

S.-S. Jeon

School of Civil & Urban Engineering, Construction Technology Research Center, INJE University, Kimhae, South Korea

Correspondence to:S.-S. Jeon ([email protected])

Received: 19 January 2013 – Published in Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 5 March 2013Revised: 6 August 2013 – Accepted: 6 August 2013 – Published: 13 September 2013

Abstract. Earthquake loss estimation systems in the US,for example HAZUS (Hazard in US), have been establishedbased on sufficient damage records for the purpose of preven-tion and efficient response to earthquake hazards; however,in Korea, insufficient data sets of earthquakes and damagerecords are currently available. In this study, the earthquakedamages to pipelines in Korea using the pipeline repair rate(RR) recommended in HAZUS was reevaluated with the de-gree of confidence when RR is used without modificationfor the damage estimation of pipelines in Korea. The nu-merical analyses using a commercial finite element model,ABAQUS, were carried out to compare stresses and strainsmobilized in both brittle and ductile pipelines constructed bythe design criteria and construction specifications of both Ko-rea and the US. These pipelines were embedded in densesand overlying three different in situ soils (clay, sand, andgravel) subjected to earthquake excitations with peak groundaccelerations (PGAs) of 0.2 to 1.2 g and 1994 Northridgeand 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake loadings. The numerical re-sults show that differences in the stress and strain rates areless than 10 %. This implies that RR in HAZUS can be usedfor earthquake damage estimation of pipelines with a 90 %confidence level in Korea.

1 Introduction

Buried pipelines, one example of lifelines, have not beendamaged by previous earthquakes in Korea. However, vibra-tions of the ground and buildings were perceived by peopleliving in both Busan and Masan, located in the southern partof Korea, during the 2005 Fukuoka earthquake that occurredin Japan (Park et al., 2005). In recent years, earthquakes have

become frequent in Korea and thus the behavior of buriedpipelines subjected to seismic loading is examined in this pa-per.

There have been a number of studies related to buriedpipelines. For example, Wang and Cheng (1979) performeda simplified quasi-static seismic deformation analysis forburied pipelines subjected to earthquake loadings to exam-ine the effects of seismic parameters. They found that the be-havior of buried pipeline was dominantly influenced by thetime delay of seismic waves and the nonuniformity of soilresistance.

Takada and Tanabe (1987) developed a three-dimensionalquasi-static numerical analysis of continuous or jointedpipelines subject to large ground deformations or seismicground motions. The wave propagation hazard for a particu-lar site is characterized by the peak ground motion parame-ters as well as the appropriate propagation velocities.

O’Rourke and Liu (1999) analyzed the ground strain andcurvature due to wave propagation and discussed the influ-ence of various subsurface conditions on ground strain. Tran-sient ground strains are recognized to govern the response ofburied elongated structures, such as pipelines and tunnels,under seismic wave propagation.

Scandella and Paolucci (2010) investigated the shear strainand the longitudinal strain variability with depth throughqualitative examples and comparisons with analytical for-mulas. In Korea, Lee et al. (2009) performed earthquaketime-history analyses for a buried gas pipeline using vari-ous parameters such as the type of buried gas pipeline, endrestrain conditions, soil characteristics, single and multipleearthquake input ground motions, and burial depths.

Buried pipeline damage correlations are a critical com-ponent of loss estimation procedures applied to lifelines

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

2272 S.-S. Jeon: Seismic behavior of buried pipelines

Table 1.Brittle and ductile pipelines classified by pipe materials (Ministry of Environment, 2010a, b).

Types of pipeline Pipe materials

Ductile Ductile iron, steel, galvanized steel, polyethylene, stainless steel, copper,polyethylene sheeting, fiber reinforced

Brittle Steel reinforced concrete, cast iron, earthen, centrifugal reinforced concrete,lime cast iron, steel reinforced concrete box, Hume concrete

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

PGV (cm/sec)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Rep

air

Ra

te (

ea

/km

)

Brittle Pipe

Ductile Pipe

Fig. 1. Fragility curve of buried pipelines provided by HAZUS with the repair rate (RR) given as

a function of the peak ground velocity (PGV) (FEMA, 1999)

Fig. 1.Fragility curve of buried pipelines provided by HAZUS withthe RR given as a function of the PGV (FEMA, 1999).

expected to experience future earthquakes. Buried pipelinesare damaged by transient ground motions and permanentground deformation. Pipeline damage induced by wave prop-agation for relatively flexible pipe materials was found tobe somewhat less than damage of relatively brittle material(O’Rourke and Ayala, 1993). Permanent ground deforma-tion and its effect on pipelines has been extensively inves-tigated (O’Rourke et al., 1998), especially in countries ofhigh seismicity. During representative earthquakes, includ-ing the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, buried pipelineswere damaged mostly in landfill areas by means of joint pull-out failures and pipeline cracking. In addition to these dam-age patterns, artificial connections between relatively rigidpipelines and largely deformable plastic pipe experienceddamage during the Kobe earthquake in 1995. Trunk pipelinedamage and cracks in the axial direction of concrete pipelineswere assessed. Pipeline repair rates (RRs) following the 1994Northridge earthquake were evaluated and explained (Jeon,2002; Jeon and O’Rourke, 2005).

Shih and Chang (2006) performed a seismic fragility anal-ysis of underground polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipelines anddemonstrated that there was no significant difference be-tween the analyses results and the empirical equation usedby HAZUS (Hazard in US), i.e., earthquake loss estimationsoftware developed by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA).

Table 2.Required minimum embedded depth for buried pipeline asloading is applied to ground surface (Ministry of Land, Transport,and Maritime Affairs, 2010).

Pipeline Required minimumdiameter (D) embedded depth (mm)

D ≤ 900 mm 1200 mmD ≥ 1000 mm D ≤ and≥ 1500 mm

Table 3. Minimum embedded depth for buried pipeline (Office ofPipeline Safety Community (OPS), 2010).

Location Embedded depth fornormal excavation (mm)

Industrial and residential areas 91430 m width stream 1219Public roadway and railway ditch 914Port areas in deep water 1219Mexico Bay and water depth (ebb tide)≤ 4.6 m 914Water depth (ebb tide)≤ 3.6 m 914Other areas 762

Toprak and Taskin (2007) estimated pipeline damage foreach damage relationship and earthquake scenario. The re-sults show that the variation in ductile pipeline damage esti-mations by various relationships was higher than the vari-ation in brittle pipeline damage estimations for a partic-ular scenario earthquake. Pineda-Porras and Ordaz (2007)proposed a new seismic intensity parameter utilizing peakground velocity (PGV) and peak ground acceleration (PGA)to estimate damage in buried pipelines due to seismic wavepropagation.

Tan and Chen (1987) estimated the probability of systemserviceability as the ratio of the number of networks thatwere found to be serviceable to the sample size used for sim-ulation. The water transmission network was adopted and an-alyzed to serve as a numerical example demonstrating howto assess the probabilities of system unserviceability under aset of assumed parameter values deemed reasonable. Filhoet al. (2010) developed a decision support system for themanagement of geotechnical and environmental risks in oilpipelines using GIS.

Historical data and recorded data sets after 1905 show thatKorea is in a zone of low to medium seismicity but it hasa high frequency of earthquake occurrences. In this study,

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2271–2278, 2013 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2271/2013/

S.-S. Jeon: Seismic behavior of buried pipelines 2273

Table 4.Mechanical characteristics of soils used in numerical anal-ysis.

Soil γ E ν c ϕ

types (kN m−3) (MPa) (kPa) (◦)

Clay 15.0 5 0.35 10 20Loose sand 18.6 15 0.3 0 25Medium dense sand 19.0 25 0.3 0 28Dense sand 19.4 45 0.3 0 30Dense sand and gravel 20.0 120 0.25 0 35

pipelines were classified by their mechanical properties fol-lowed by a numerical analysis which examined the behaviorof the buried pipelines constructed by the design criteria andconstruction specifications of Korea and the US. The anal-ysis considered seismic parameters including PGA achievedfrom previous earthquake records, pipeline types, and in situground conditions.

This paper is organized as follows. First, the repair rate(RR) of pipelines (Sect. 2) is described based on historicalliterature review. Second, the design criteria and constructionspecifications (Sect. 3) are examined for the pipelines in bothKorea and the US. Then, a dynamic behavior of the pipelineusing numerical analysis (Sect. 4) is evaluated by using thecommercial finite element software ABAQUS (2006).

2 Repair rate of pipelines

The damages of water pipelines in HAZUS were assessed byhistorical data of pipeline repairs from previous earthquakes.As shown in Fig. 1, the algorithm of RR for brittle and duc-tile pipelines in HAZUS was developed by O’Rourke andAyala (1993). They developed the empirical relationship ofRR with PGV based on the damage reports of the pipelinesfrom previous earthquakes (FEMA, 1999).

Since the mechanical characteristics of pipelines, designcriteria, and construction specifications of both Korea andthe US are very similar, the pipeline damages induced byseismic loadings in Korea has been predicted by RR sug-gested in HAZUS. As the seismic loading was applied toburied pipelines constructed based on the design criteria andconstruction specifications in Korea and the US, the mobi-lized stresses and strain rates of pipelines were examined andcompared.

As listed in Table 1, buried utilities in Korea, includingwater, gas, and communication pipelines, were classified intotwo categories; ductile and brittle (Ministry of Environment,2010a, b).

3 Design criteria and construction specifications

The burial depth, the backfill compaction ratio, and the di-ameter and thickness of pipelines listed on the construction

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (sec)

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accele

ra

tio

n (

g)

Northridge

Fig. 2. History of ground acceleration record during the 17 January 1994 Northridge (Mw = 6.7)

earthquake (COSMOS, 2010)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (sec)

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accele

ra

tio

n (

g)

Chi-Chi

Fig. 3. History of ground acceleration record during the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi (Mw = 7.6)


Fig. 2. History of ground acceleration record during the 17 Jan-uary 1994 Northridge (Mw = 6.7) earthquake (COSMOS, 2010).

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (sec)

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accele

ra

tio

n (

g)

Northridge

Fig. 2. History of ground acceleration record during the 17 January 1994 Northridge (Mw = 6.7)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (sec)

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accele

ra

tio

n (

g)

Chi-Chi

Fig. 3. History of ground acceleration record during the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi (Mw = 7.6)


Fig. 3.History of ground acceleration record during the 21 Septem-ber 1999 Chi-Chi (Mw = 7.6) earthquake (COSMOS, 2010).

specifications were used in a numerical analysis to examinethe dynamic behavior of pipelines as seismic loading was ap-plied.

3.1 Korea

As listed in Table 2, the burial depths, considering trafficloading, should be greater than 1.2 and 1.5 m for the 900 and1000 mm diameter pipelines, respectively (Ministry of Land,Transport, and Maritime Affairs, 2010). The burial depth forlarge diameter pipelines should be greater than their diameterbut, in the case that a burial depth of 1.2 m is not available dueto spatial constraints associated with adjacent undergroundstructures, the burial depth can be reduced to 0.6 m with per-mission from the officer in charge of roadway management(Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs, 2010).

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2271/2013/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2271–2278, 2013


Table 5. Mechanical characteristics of pipelines used in numericalanalysis.

Types of γ E ν

pipelines (kN m−3) (MPa)

Ductile 69.1 160 000 0.28Brittle 22.5 19 600 0.17

3.2 The US

Table 3 lists the specifications for the burial depth ofpipelines with respect to construction sites where there areno special conditions (Office of Pipeline Safety Community(OPS), 2010). Pipeline burial depth should be greater thanthe frozen ground depth or frost line. High quality soil is usedas backfill material for buried pipelines. Each layer of back-fill should have a thickness less than 0.3 m and a compactionratio of greater than 90 % and, at important construction sites,the water content of backfill materials should be around theoptimum water content and at most 0.2 m lifts with high com-paction ratios are required (OPS, 2010). Sands used as trenchbackfill material should have a high compaction ratio withmoisture near the optimum water content and the use of soillifts is recommended (OPS, 2010).

Lift thicknesses of 20–50 % of the minimum diameter of apipeline are required in Korea (Ministry of Land, Transport,and Maritime Affairs, 2010). A lift thickness correspondingto one-eighth of the minimum diameter of the pipeline or100 mm is required in the US (OPS, 2010).

4 Evaluating dynamic behavior of the pipeline usingnumerical analysis

In this study, a numerical analysis using the commercial fi-nite element software ABAQUS (2006) was carried out toanalyze the dynamic behavior of pipelines subjected to seis-mic loading. The analysis’s results show the strain rates andstresses of buried pipelines constructed by the design criteriaand construction specifications suggested by both Korea andthe US. The applied seismic loadings were generated fromreal PGV time records measured at strong motion stations(SMSs) No. 24436 and CHY080 for the 1994 Northridge(Mw = 6.7) and 1999 Chi-Chi (Mw = 7.6) earthquakes, re-spectively. Figures 2 and 3 show the measured PGV timerecords of Northridge and Chi-Chi earthquakes, respectively(COSMOS, 2010). In addition to these, the virtual values ofvarious PGAs, such as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 g, at aperiod of 0.5 s and earthquake duration of 10 s were appliedas seismic loadings. Numerical modeling will first be exam-ined, followed by dynamic behavior of the pipeline.

Fig. 4. Configuration of numerical model associated with pipelineand an in situ soil depth and width of 30.5 and 120 m, respectively.

Fig. 5. Finite element mesh configuration and boundary conditionsfor pipelines and an in situ soil depth and width of 30.5 and 120 m,respectively.

4.1 Numerical modeling

The numerical analyses for brittle and ductile pipelines witha greater than 1000 mm diameter and constructed based onthe design criteria and construction specifications of both Ko-rea and the US were carried out. Since a compaction ratioof 90 % for backfill materials is required in both countries,dense sand soil properties were used. The analyses were per-formed considering various in situ ground conditions such asclay, loose sand, medium dense sand, dense sand, and sandwith gravel. In Korea, the diameter and thickness of the brit-tle and ductile pipelines used in the analyses were 1050 and75 mm and 1130 and 16 mm, respectively. For the US, thesevalues were 1058 and 75 mm and 1144 and 16 mm, respec-tively.

Figures 4 and 5 show the configuration and finite differ-ence meshes of numerical analysis associated with pipeline,ground conditions, and boundary conditions. The figureshows an in situ soil depth of 30.5 m with a 120 m widthground. No horizontal displacements are allowed at the leftand right sides and no horizontal nor vertical displacementsare allowed at the bottom. In Korea and the US, a depth ofsoil cover above the pipe (hB1) of 1.5 and 0.9 m and a bed-ding thickness beneath the pipe (hB2) of 0.25 and 0.15 m,



Table 6.Mobilized strain difference (%) of pipeline modeled based on Korea and US design criteria and construction specification.

Pipe Soil\PGA (g) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Avg1 SD2

Ductile pipe

Clay 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.9 8.3 6.4 8.3 0.94Loose sand 9.8 9.8 8.3 8.5 7.8 7.4 8.6 1.02Medium dense sand 9.7 8.7 8.6 7.9 4.8 7.7 7.9 1.65Dense sand 9.1 6.1 5.0 6.3 6.2 3.5 6.1 1.85Dense sand and gravel 8.8 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.4 1.69

Brittle pipe


1 Avg: average;2SD: standard deviation.

Table 7.Mobilized stress difference (%) of pipeline modeled based on Korea and US design criteria and construction specification.

Pipeline Soil\PGA (g) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Avg1 SD2

Ductile pipe


Brittle pipe


1 Avg: average;2 SD: standard deviation.

respectively, were used in numerical analysis. Tables 4 and 5list the mechanical properties of the soils and pipelines, re-spectively.

4.2 Dynamic behavior of the pipeline

4.2.1 Ductile pipeline

Figure 6 shows the maximum mobilized stress for ductilepipeline subjected to various ground conditions As shownin the figure, the mobilized stress in pipelines linearly in-creases as PGA increases and ground stiffness decreases. Themobilized stress of pipelines in Korea relative to the US isslightly smaller. Differences mobilized along the pipelinesrange from 4.7 to 11.3 %, 4.7 to 11.8 %, 4.7 to 10.1 %, 2.6to 11.7 %, and 3.9 to 10.7 % for in situ ground conditions ofclay, loose sand, medium dense sand, dense sand, and densesand with gravel, respectively.

Figure 7 shows the maximum strain mobilized on ductilepipelines for various ground conditions. As shown in the fig-ure, the strain rate mobilized along the pipelines increasesas PGA increases and ground stiffness decreases. The strainrate of pipeline in Korea relative to the US is slightly higher.

The strain rates differ from 6.4 to 8.9 %, 7.4 to 9.8 %, 4.8 to9.7 %, 3.5 to 9.1 %, and 4.5 to 8.8 % for in situ ground condi-tions of clay, loose sand, medium dense sand, dense sand, anddense sand with gravel, respectively. As the seismic loadingsof Northridge and Chi-Chi earthquakes were applied, the mo-bilized pipeline strains were 1.9 and 4.5 %, respectively.

4.2.2 Brittle pipeline

Figure 8 shows the maximum mobilized stress for brittlepipeline subjected to various ground conditions. As shown inthe figure, stresses in pipelines linearly increase as PGA in-creases and ground stiffness decreases. The mobilized stressof pipelines in Korea, relative to the US, is slightly smaller.Stress differences mobilized along pipelines range from 4.2to 9.3 %, 4.4 to 9.3 %, 4.7 to 7.8 %, 4.7 to 9.1 %, and 4.9to 8.2 % for in situ ground conditions of clay, loose sand,medium dense sand, dense sand, and dense sand with gravel,respectively.

Figure 9 shows the maximum mobilized strain for brittlepipeline subjected to various ground conditions. As shownin the figure, strain rates mobilized along pipeline increaseas the PGA increases and ground stiffness decreases. The



4

(a) Korea

(b) The US

Fig. 6. Stress of ductile pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadings with respect to peak ground

acceleration (PGA) in various in-situ ground conditions. Values are derived from finite element

analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.1 for further details)

Fig. 6. Stress of ductile pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadingswith respect to PGA in various in situ ground conditions. Values arederived from finite element analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.1 forfurther details).

pipeline strain rate in Korea relative to the US is smaller.Strain differences mobilized along pipelines range from 3.8to 8.5 %, 3.0 to 9.9 %, 2.8 to 8.9 %, 2.2 to 9.9 %, and 4.5to 9.8 % for in situ ground conditions of clay, loose sand,medium dense sand, dense sand, and dense sand with gravel,respectively. As the seismic loadings of Northridge and Chi-Chi earthquakes were applied, the generated strains were 6.5and 3.8 %, respectively.

5

(a) Korea

(b) The US

Fig. 7. Strain (%) of ductile pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadings with respect to peak

ground acceleration (PGA) in various in-situ ground conditions. Values are derived from finite

element analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.1 for further details)

Fig. 7.Strain (%) of ductile pipeline mobilized by earthquake load-ings with respect to PGA in various in situ ground conditions.Values are derived from finite element analysis (see Fig. 5 andSect. 4.2.1 for further details).

Tables 6 and 7 present the differences of the strain andstress, calculated by using Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively:

εdiff =εk − εu

εk× 100(%) , (1)

σdiff =σk − σu

σk× 100(%) , (2)

whereεdiff represents difference of strain mobilized in Ko-rea and US pipelines,εk represents strain mobilized in Koreapipeline,εu represents strain mobilized in US pipeline,σdiffrepresents difference of stress mobilized in Korea and US



6

(a) Korea

(b) The US

Fig. 8. Stress of brittle pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadings with respect to peak ground

acceleration (PGA) in various in-situ ground conditions. Values are derived from finite element

analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.2 for further details)

Fig. 8. Stress of brittle pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadingswith respect to PGA in various in situ ground conditions. Values arederived from finite element analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.2 forfurther details).

pipelines,σk represents stress mobilized in Korea pipeline,andσu represents stress mobilized in US pipeline.

The results show that differences of stress and strain mobi-lized along the pipelines in Korea and the US are 6 to 7.4 %and 6 to 8.6 % with standard deviations of 1.08 to 3.69 andof 0.94 to 3.28, respectively. Differences of both stress andstrain mobilized along the pipelines in Korea and US are lessthan 10 %. Based on the analyses results, RR in HAZUS canbe used for the earthquake damage estimation of pipelines inKorea with a 90 % confidence level.

7

(a) Korea

(b) The US

Fig. 9. Strain (%) of brittle pipeline mobilized by earthquake loadings with respect to peak

ground acceleration (PGA) in various in-situ ground conditions. Values are derived from finite

element analysis (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.2.2 for further details)

Fig. 9. Strain (%) of brittle pipeline mobilized by earthquake load-ings with respect to PGA in various in situ ground conditions.Values are derived from finite element analysis (see Fig. 5 andSect. 4.2.2 for further details).

5 Conclusions

The objective of this study is to examine the confidencelevel when RR recommended in HAZUS is directly used forthe damage estimation of pipelines in Korea due to seismicloading. RR in HAZUS was developed based on historicaldata of high magnitude earthquakes in the US. There is de-ficient or no historical data available for pipelines damagedby earthquakes in Korea. Therefore, as an approximate earth-quake damage estimation of pipelines, RR recommended inHAZUS can be used for the damage estimation. However,



since the design criteria and construction specification forburied pipelines in Korea and the US are different, the earth-quake damages to pipelines in Korea using the pipeline RRrecommended in HAZUS was reevaluated with the degreeof confidence when RR is used without modification for thedamage estimation of pipelines in Korea.

The numerical analyses using a commercial finite ele-ment model, ABAQUS (2006), were carried out to comparestresses and strains mobilized in buried pipelines constructedby the design criteria and construction specifications of bothKorea and the US. The numerical results show that differ-ences in the stress and strain rates are less than 10 %. Thisimplies that RR in HAZUS can be used for earthquake dam-age estimation of pipelines with a 90 % confidence level inKorea.

Acknowledgements.This work was supported by the INJE Re-search and Scholarship Foundation in 2011.

Edited by: B. D. MalamudReviewed by: two anonymous referees

References

ABAQUS Inc: Analysis user’s manual, version 6.6, Hibbit, Karls-son & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI, 2006.

COSMOS, Peak Ground Acceleration Records, available at:http://db.cosmos-eq.org, last access: 10 December 2010.

FEMA: HAZUS99 Technical Manual. National Institute of Build-ing Science, Washington, DC, 1999.

Filho, O. A., Hirai, J. N., Oliveira, A. S., and Liotti, E. S.: GISapplied to geotechnical and environmental risk management ina Brazilian oil pipeline, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 69, 631–641,2010.

Jeon, S.-S.: Earthquake performance of pipelines and residentialbuildings and, rehabilitation with cast-in-place pipe lining sys-tems, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York, 2002.

Jeon, S.-S. and O’Rourke, T. D.: Northridge earthquake effects onpipelines and residential buildings, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95,1–25, 2005.

Lee, D. H., Kim, B. H., Lee, H., and Kong, J. S.: Seismic behavior ofa buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations, Eng. Struct.,31, 1011–1023, 2009.

Ministry of Environment, Standard of wastewater facility, KoreaWater and Wastewater Works Association, Seoul, Korea, avail-able at:http://www.kwwa.or.kr/reference/devlop02list.php, lastaccess: 5 October 2010a.

Ministry of Environment, Standard of water facility, Korea Waterand Wastewater Works Association, Seoul, Korea, available at:http://www.kwwa.or.kr/reference/devlop01list.php, last access:5 October 2010b.

Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs, Road Act,Seoul, Korea, available at:http://mltm.go.kr/USR/ordinance/m15019/lst.jsp, last access: 5 October 2010.

Office of Pipeline Safety Community (OPS), Pipeline Safety Act,Washington, DC, available at:http://ops.dot.gov.regulations, lastaccess: 12 September 2010.

O’Rourke, M. J. and Ayala, G.: Pipeline damage due to wave prop-agation, J. Geotech. Eng., 119, 1490–1498, 1993.

O’Rourke, M. J. and Liu, X.: Response of buried pipelines subject toearthquake effects, Monograph No. 3, Multidisciplinary Centerfor Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 33–57, 1999.

O’Rourke, T. D., Toprak, S., and Sano, Y.: Factors Affecting WaterSupply Damage Caused by the Northridge Earthquake, Proceed-ings of 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,Seattle, WA, 1–12, 31 May–4 June 1998.

Park, D., Yun, K., Chang, C.-J., Choi, W.-H., and Lee, D.-S.:Ground motion evaluation from the Fukuoka earthquake, J. Ko-rean Geophys. Soc., 8, 109–113, 2005 (in Korean).

Pineda-Porras, O. and Ordaz, M.: A new seismic intensity param-eter to estimate damage in buried pipeline due to seismic wavepropagation, J. Earthquake Eng., 11, 773–786, 2007.

Scandella, L. and Paolucci, R.: Earthquake induced ground strainsin the pressure of strong lateral soil heterogeneities, Bull. Earth-quake Eng., 8, 1527–1546, 2010.

Shih, B.-J. and Chang C.-H.: Damage survey of water supply sys-tems and fragility curve of PVC water pipelines in the Chi-ChiTaiwan earthquake, Nat. Hazards, 37, 71–85, 2006.

Takada, S. and Tanabe, K.: Three-dimensional seismic responseanalysis of buried continuous or jointed pipelines, J. PressureVessel Technology, 109, 80–87, 1987.

Tan, R. Y. and Chen, S. M.: The performance of water transmissionsystems under seismic loadings, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 6,149–157, 1987.

Toprak, S. and Taskin, F.: Estimation of earthquake damage toburied pipelines caused by ground shaking, Nat. Hazards, 40, 1–24, 2007.

Wang, L. R.-L. and Cheng, K.-M.: Seismic response behavior ofburied pipelines, J. Pressure Vessel Technology, 101, 21–30,1979.


http://db.cosmos-eq.org

http://db.cosmos-eq.org

http://www.kwwa.or.kr/reference/devlop02_list.php

http://www.kwwa.or.kr/reference/devlop01_list.php

http://mltm.go.kr/USR/ordinance/m_15019/lst.jsp

http://mltm.go.kr/USR/ordinance/m_15019/lst.jsp

http://ops.dot.gov.regulations

Seismic behavior of buried pipelines constructed by design criteria

Documents

Transcript of Seismic behavior of buried pipelines constructed by design criteria